Huh? the left wants government control of spending? where? over what continuum? neither party wants to control spending (the right just a little less than the left, but they still love to spend, and the last ten years have shown it). You say you are not so much against higher taxes as you are against giving more money to the govt. did you not realize the two are interrelated? ask Californians.

The government never has enough , they will keep taxing and spending and taxing and spending. they basically admit it.

Control is not necessarily good control, and yes Republican push the ideal of tax cuts to their business constitutes however show no greater responsibility with their own spending.

Higher taxes coupled with responsible spending from the government is fine.
Lower taxes coupled with responsible spending from the private sector is fine.
In the US we seem capable of neither.

IMO the problem isn’t how high are low taxes are. The problem is a lack of responsible spending.

Huh? the left wants government control of spending? where? over what continuum? neither party wants to control spending (the right just a little less than the left, but they still love to spend, and the last ten years have shown it). You say you are not so much against higher taxes as you are against giving more money to the govt. did you not realize the two are interrelated? ask Californians.

The government never has enough , they will keep taxing and spending and taxing and spending. they basically admit it.

Control is not necessarily good control, and yes Republican push the ideal of tax cuts to their business constitutes however show no greater responsibility with their own spending.

Higher taxes coupled with responsible spending from the government is fine.
Lower taxes coupled with responsible spending from the private sector is fine.
In the US we seem capable of neither.

IMO the problem isn’t how high are low taxes are. The problem is a lack of responsible spending.

what makes higher taxes fine? what is the criteria that is appropriate for the government to take earnings from individuals (like yourself), to spend on anything other than what is clearly in the Constitution (or within Constitutional limits)?

What do you mean “responsible spending” from the private sector?

I do agree that there is a lack of responsible spending. There should be less. The current administration has quadrupled the deficit (and lost jobs, and reported higher unemployment). When are people going to learn, the government can’t balance a checkbook unless there is a Constitutional mandate (which is opposed by the left, like Krugman and other Keynesian economists).

Signature

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat):

“It’s a free country; I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country.” when speaking of a rally on the Capitol.

what makes higher taxes fine? what is the criteria that is appropriate for the government to take earnings from individuals (like yourself), to spend on anything other than what is clearly in the Constitution (or within Constitutional limits)?

The government purchases services from the private sector. Government spending puts money back into the economy, businesses make profit by providing those services so can grow and expand, provide jobs, pay salaries, they need their own services from companies which do not directly support the government.

The Federal government is a customer to many private sector companies. If your customer has more to spend that provides more opportunities for business.

What do you mean “responsible spending” from the private sector?

We are all in this together. A corporation should understand that it needs a healthy, happy workforce. It is a part of the economic community and should look into ways to support the over-all business community. Perhaps even support charities to support the labor force it draws from. Be willing to make a little less profit so if the community is doing better then they can better afford the services you provide. Making huge profits is ok however those profits needs to be put back into the community/economy so everyone can continue to prosper.

The Fed Gov is like a business. The people running things need to understand they are part of the flow of exchange of goods and services. What is taken, like higher taxes, has to be equally and fairly put back into that flow. Individuals (government and private sector) get greedy and take more than they put in. That throws the economy out of balance. Too many people are doing it for too long is just not healthy for anyone.

I think if people realized that, they would seek to balance their give and take because they would understand how supporting the community as a whole benefits themselves.

I do agree that there is a lack of responsible spending. There should be less. The current administration has quadrupled the deficit (and lost jobs, and reported higher unemployment). When are people going to learn, the government can’t balance a checkbook unless there is a Constitutional mandate (which is opposed by the left, like Krugman and other Keynesian economists).

Politicians tend to funnel funding to special interests because they benefit through lobbyists. Special interests usually take a lot more from the system than they put in. You have to give and take equally wherever you happen to be in that system in order to have a healthy economy.

I’ve worked at private companies who try to make a profit while cutting their own expenses which translated into providing an inferior product and charging more for it.

Politicians can easily cut costs, try to support special interests and end up with a unworkable mess. They cut education, police, fire, important infrastructure. Individually they get the most benefit by keeping the lobbyists happy. However the whole suffers. Individually they will begin to suffer too but who cares about the long term?

what makes higher taxes fine? what is the criteria that is appropriate for the government to take earnings from individuals (like yourself), to spend on anything other than what is clearly in the Constitution (or within Constitutional limits)?

What do you mean “responsible spending” from the private sector?

At least part of the problem with talking about Constitutional Limits is that the world and the country do not work the way they did in 1790.

They didn’t have compulsory education back then. Is it constitutional?

Should we get rid of it?

But none of our GREAT LEADERS suggest something as simple as mandatory accounting in those schools. If that had begun back in the 60s would we have so much of a mess now? I have noticed that liars don’t like people knowledgeable enough and smart enough to catch their lies.

Those mandatory schools must keep kids properly ignorant even though we need more taxes for the schools.

psik

Signature

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

He’s in a very similar situation Clinton was in when the Contract With America came out. Too bad I don’t think he can figure a political way out of it. IMHO he’s been too compromising with the GOP. He added a bunch of stuff they wanted for the healthcare bill and that go him nowhere. Perhaps he was/is still just to junior in Washington politics. He hasn’t learned to use the bully pulpit to his advantage to get ahead. I’ve just read Jackson: An American Lion and half way through The White House Tapes (a Clinton bio). Both these guys were really good at getting the public on there side when it came to issues and keeping Congress in its place. Perhaps were a seeing the end of the end of the White House being the seat of power in DC and it moving back to Congress? I don’t see Obama being reelected (Clinton was the first democratic president reelected since Truman if I remember correctly) unless unemployment drops (pulling a figure out of the air) to 7.5%.

Clinton was a likable guy, even if you didn’t agree with his politics, he was a likable guy.

Obama has an air of superiority about him, that even if true, sometimes makes him not so likable.

Bush against Gore, Bush came off as a likable guy. Gore, airs of superiority. Each party has it’s core of voters. The un-affiliated I suspect votes whoever seems more likable.

I suppose this would be obvious however Democrats seem to forget this and make the mistake of trying to campaign on facts.

Seriously, watching Obama hand over the podium the other night demonstrated how America feels about Clinton. Agree with him or not, he was presidential material (Rhodes scholar), brilliant, engaging and likeable. Even if you did not agree with his policies, or his personal life (of course, all those women who accused him, lied…in the case of Bill Clinton, every single one of them was a liar).

Signature

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat):

“It’s a free country; I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country.” when speaking of a rally on the Capitol.